A Winston Churchill Thread.

[ruger9]

Don't know how I missed this thread. Thank God for Churchill, I can't imagine what would have happened without him at a crucial time.

He wasn't perfect, nobody is, but he was absolutely the right person for THAT job at THAT time.

I have his autobiography, but it's so huge I've been hesitant to start it! LOL

 

[László]

Don't know how I missed this thread. Thank God for Churchill, I can't imagine what would have happened without him at a crucial time.

He wasn't perfect, nobody is, but he was absolutely the right person for THAT job at THAT time.

I have his autobiography, but it's so huge I've been hesitant to start it! LOL

Yeah, his own writing about himself is...detailed. But it's interesting as heck, and I can't resist reading it.

I agree with your assessment of the man. Had enough backbone and old-fashioned grit - and attention to detail - that he was in the right place, at the right time, several times in history.

One of the things about the WWI book is that he saw the Navy was totally unprepared for war as early as 1911, and it was very largely his effort that sparked the production of up-gunned ships with more armor, and production of enough ships to maintain naval superiority, important for an island nation that lacked military manpower (to give you an idea, the British had only 6 divisions available around 1912, and the Germans wound up invading France with over 120, if memory serves). Without Naval superiority, Britain could have easily been invaded in both wars.

Much is made of the Battle of Britain in 1940, which was well handled, but the research shows that the reason Germany needed to eliminate Britain's air potential was so they could use their aircraft to prevent the Royal Navy from stopping an invasion in a Channel crossing.

Germany so lacked military shipping that they were literally equipping flat-bottomed river barges to be towed across the channel. You can imagine how that would have gone against an effective battleship and cruiser response, especially in rough seas. It would have gone badly.

Churchill also proposed reforms in 1911-12 in how the Admiralty was run so it could be more efficient and responsive in likely trouble spots.

He was a whirlwind of energy, and probably a gigantic pain in the ass to his military and fellow cabinet members. But he was one hell of an effective leader.

 

[Birdsofprey]

Got my ticket for the Imperial War Museum, Churchill War Rooms tour for Saturday morning in London. Can’t wait to see this historic place!

 

[tiboy]

The one I like best of all is Churchill by Andrew Roberts. It really gives you the flavor of the human being and his history.


There are no perfect human beings.

He was always controversial during his own lifetime, but one thing to remember is he was a product of the 19th Century, the Victorian era. Many of his views reflected that. We're all products of the eras we grow up in to some degree.

Regardless, there's no doubt that his leadership in Britain's decision to carry on against Hitler, his very personal diplomacy with the US that resulted in Lend Lease and the lifting of isolationist restrictions in the US on helping arm Britain (and later Russia after June, 1941) and sustain her during that crucial year of 1940-41, his ability to get past his anti-Communism and work with Stalin to win the war even before Pearl Harbor, were crucial to the outcome, and in my opinion without him the world would be different today -- not in a good way.

Churchill was behind the decision to save more than 300,000 men with the Dunkirk evacuation. He understood the necessity of preserving the RAF for defense and not send additional planes to France after the French were clearly beaten. He was behind the decisions made during the Battle of Britain, when all Britain had left was air and sea power.

These decisions took guts and were both necessary and intelligent.

In fact, his warnings beginning in the early '30s about the dangers of Nazism and the lack of preparation among the Western democracies were prescient, proved correct, and that's a big reason he was given the Premiership in May of 1940.

People fail to credit Churchill with having his military leadership do a study regarding whether Britain could in fact resist and invasion, and understanding that study before deciding to carry on. They fail to credit his efforts to get the US to work with them to create the Joint Chiefs of Staff and create a military alliance that actually worked, instead of each country proceeding in an uncoordinated way (the Axis countries never coordinated their military efforts, and failed miserably). They fail to credit his recognition of the necessity and value of code breakers at Bletchley Park. I could go on and on. They fail to credit his willingness to share nuclear research with the US when it became clear the Nazis were trying to develop atomic weapons.

There are so many things he did right.

Churchill and other democratic leaders of his era in the West were giants among men. Churchill, FDR, Eisenhower, Marshall, de Gaulle, and a number of others. All of them, even paranoid Stalin, respected Churchill.

Everyone has their flaws; Churchill had many. But he also had determination, grit, an ethical stance, and brilliance.

I also think the Labour government that was voted in immediately after the war got a lot less done than Churchill would have, and was part of the reason that Britain had to maintain rationing, etc.,

 

[tiboy]

Yeah, his own writing about himself is...detailed. But it's interesting as heck, and I can't resist reading it.

I agree with your assessment of the man. Had enough backbone and old-fashioned grit - and attention to detail - that he was in the right place, at the right time, several times in history.

One of the things about the WWI book is that he saw the Navy was totally unprepared for war as early as 1911, and it was very largely his effort that sparked the production of up-gunned ships with more armor, and production of enough ships to maintain naval superiority, important for an island nation that lacked military manpower (to give you an idea, the British had only 6 divisions available around 1912, and the Germans wound up invading France with over 120, if memory serves). Without Naval superiority, Britain could have easily been invaded in both wars.

Much is made of the Battle of Britain in 1940, which was well handled, but the research shows that the reason Germany needed to eliminate Britain's air potential was so they could use their aircraft to prevent the Royal Navy from stopping an invasion in a Channel crossing.

Germany so lacked military shipping that they were literally equipping flat-bottomed river barges to be towed across the channel. You can imagine how that would have gone against an effective battleship and cruiser response, especially in rough seas. It would have gone badly.

Churchill also proposed reforms in 1911-12 in how the Admiralty was run so it could be more efficient and responsive in likely trouble spots.

He was a whirlwind of energy, and probably a gigantic pain in the ass to his military and fellow cabinet members. But he was one hell of an effective leader.

Just picked it up at the library.

 

[László]

Just picked it up at the library.

Here's hoping you enjoy it! I found it a good read.

 

[sergiodeblanc]

He’s not my hero of history. Further discussion from me would absolutely violate forum rules, and pee in the wind of Les’ thread.

However, the tales of his alcohol intake is impressive and pretty heroic (from a certain point of view).

 

[tiboy]

Here's hoping you enjoy it! I found it a good read.

I’ve been on a biography kick lately. Richard Nixon, Alexander Hamilton and just finishing up Thomas Jefferson. I intersperse with mindless novels of fiction: usually action oriented.

 

[Juan Luis Vidal]

Got my ticket for the Imperial War Museum, Churchill War Rooms tour for Saturday morning in London. Can’t wait to see this historic place!

If you like history you will have a blast!

Sorry for the pic quality...phones were what they were in 2013

 

[Moondog Wily]

Thought this might be of interest to some of you ;~)) This came up on a military feed I subscribe to on Facebook!

"Imagine you're the pilot of a British-operated, Boeing 314 Clipper crossing the Atlantic in early-1942. Your passenger insists on having a go at the controls, but you can't really say no."

 

[sergiodeblanc]

Thought this might be of interest to some of you ;~)) This came up on a military feed I subscribe to on Facebook!

"Imagine you're the pilot of a British-operated, Boeing 314 Clipper crossing the Atlantic in early-1942. Your passenger insists on having a go at the controls, but you can't really say no."

I assume he’s only had one bottle of champagne at this point in the day, so it’s probably fine.

 

[László]

Thought this might be of interest to some of you ;~)) This came up on a military feed I subscribe to on Facebook!

"Imagine you're the pilot of a British-operated, Boeing 314 Clipper crossing the Atlantic in early-1942. Your passenger insists on having a go at the controls, but you can't really say no."

I guess the "no smoking" light was turned off.

Actually, Churchill learned to fly when he was first lord of the Admiralty, just before WW1; he was really into the idea of naval aviation and learned how to operate a plane.

You can imagine that it took guts to get into a wood, cloth and wire contraption in 1913 and take off. Gotta give him credit.

 

[RC Mike]

WW2 history has always been an interest of mine. Churchill was brilliant—such a mix of virtue, vice, and passion. His creativity occasionally exceeded the limitations of reality, but what a wonderful mind.

 

[László]

WW2 history has always been an interest of mine. Churchill was brilliant—such a mix of virtue, vice, and passion. His creativity occasionally exceeded the limitations of reality, but what a wonderful mind.

Churchill also had courage. Lincoln was like that, too.

They were people who rose to the occasion instead of shrinking behind perceived public opinion. They stuck their necks out. By and large, they seized the moral high ground and were willing to take their lumps if necessary.

History has shown that such leaders are very few and very far between.

 

[RC Mike]

History has shown that such leaders are very few and very far between.

Thank goodness, eh? At least in the sense that they are on the scene when needed, and we don't need that but once every several generations. I very much appreciate how uneventful things have been during most of my life.

 

[Juan Luis Vidal]

Mr. Churchill was the very man UK (and the world, by extension) needed at that very moment, whatever his multiple flaws were. One of the most baffling moments in last century's history here at Europe is july 1945, when after mere months (days?) after winning WWII in Europe Churchill loses the elections and starts serving as leader of the opposition.
Maybe he, with his cigars, bottles of booze and peculiar character was a politician for times of war, not so much for times of peace. But what a politician he was for times of war!

 

[László]

Mr. Churchill was the very man UK (and the world, by extension) needed at that very moment, whatever his multiple flaws were. One of the most baffling moments in last century's history here at Europe is july 1945, when after mere months (days?) after winning WWII in Europe Churchill loses the elections and starts serving as leader of the opposition.

True, but don't forget that in a parliamentary system, the chief executive isn't directly elected the way a president is here.

The majority party in the legislature nominates the chief executive, who is then appointed to the office (in the UK, formally by the monarch).

From my reading I gathered that the electorate wanted and expected major societal change and reform after making tremendous sacrifices during the war. The Conservatives had been in charge for 12 years, and perhaps the perception was, 'let's not have more of the same'.

Labour offered them a perceived opportunity for change. As it worked out, further sacrifices were still made after the war, despite the change of government, and within a few years Churchill was back as PM.

Maybe he, with his cigars, bottles of booze and peculiar character was a politician for times of war, not so much for times of peace. But what a politician he was for times of war!

Well, he did serve as PM in the 1950s again during peacetime, so there was that.

But you're right, he was the man for the times.

 

[Prina]

I've been reading Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's Flow and his take on history reminded me of this thread:

Having a record of the past can make a great contribution to the quality of life. It frees us from the tyranny of the present, and makes it possible for consciousness to revisit former times. And makes it possible to select and preserve in memory events that are especially pleasant and meaningful, and so to create a past that will help us deal with the future. Of course, such a past might not be literally true. But then the past can never be literally true in memory: it must be continuously edited and the question is only whether we take creative control of the editing or not.
Most of us don't think of ourselves as being amateur historians. But once we become aware that ordering events in time is a necessary part of being a conscious being, and moreover, that it is an enjoyable task, then we can do a much better job of it.

 

[ruger9]

D-Day tomorrow...

"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."

 

[Prina]

D-Day tomorrow...

One of the nastiest assignments was the capture Pointe du Hoc 'one of the most dangerous German defensive positions on the Norman coast'.

Great story, like many from that day.